Tyler Cowen's Make Him Fight Dragons Applied
OK, I have been meaning to write (I mean "right") this for a long time. I had a talk with an acquaintance - I mean, friend - of mine and she had told me about her dream man.
I say "dream man" advisedly; after all, a dream isn't real, and the man she was telling me about wasn't real at all.
I say "dream man" advisedly; after all, a dream isn't real, and the man she was telling me about wasn't real at all.
Now I had put the conversation behind me (it was a fortnight ago!) and was going about my normal, everyday life when I read Tyler Cowen's "Discover Your Inner Economist". Well, of course, I read economics books - I have an Economics degree, remember?
The thing is that you might wonder what a talk with a friend about her dream man and Tyler Cowen's book have in common.
The key thing is signalling.
The thing is that you might wonder what a talk with a friend about her dream man and Tyler Cowen's book have in common.
The key thing is signalling.
Although some may argue that economists have absolutely no right to go around poking their noses in affairs of the heart and relationships, Cowen rightly points out that it is all a matter of signalling. People are constantly signalling to each other and in the case of dating it is particularly and obviously, well, obvious.
Cowen calls the particular approach of advertising clearly and specifically the qualities that a woman wants in a man the "Make Him Fight Dragons" approach. This is a direct kind of signalling rather than the more indirect and surreptitious kind of signalling that we are used to in daily life. Basically, the woman tells her potential suitors all her requirements and then the men self-select. In other words, the men can see what kind of man she wants, and then they have to decide if they can take such a huge "dose" (I plagiarise here) of her.
Now, what's that got to do with my friend? She goes around telling everybody about her dream guy she wants to marry. I recorded down the qualities because I was flabbergasted - I mean wonderfully amazed - at her specificity.
This is one girl who appears to know what she wants (although I am pretty sure she doesn't really know what she wants).
This is one girl who appears to know what she wants (although I am pretty sure she doesn't really know what she wants).
MLQH's dream man:
1. He must share her goals and beliefs.
2. He must be of the same religion (she is Pentecostalian/"rabid Protestantish"/ she's from New Creation Church).
3. He must be rich or have the potential to become incredibly wealthy.
4. He cannot have had girlfriends before.
5. He must be a virgin.
6. He cannot be shorter than her (and my friend in question is at least 1.64m)
7. He cannot criticise her.
8. He must be absolutely honest with her.
9. He must drive.
10. He cannot be younger but also cannot be more than 5 years older.
11. He doesn't smoke.
12. He must be self made (i.e. not reliant on parents or inheritance).
13. He isn't insecure or clingy.
14. He must be able to interact with her professors (and she is going to be a PhD holder in the nursing and medical care profession!!!).
15. He must be educated to at least a first degree level.
16. He must be of the same wavelength as her.
17. He must wine and dine her and pay for all dates.
18. Above all, he must pay for their matrimonial home and all their expenses when married.
19. All these he does willingly.
Now, I am a really sporting man and would like to wager on this one.
The man here doesn't exist - my friend seems to have taken Cowen's idea of Making Him Fight Dragons to the extreme.
The man here doesn't exist - my friend seems to have taken Cowen's idea of Making Him Fight Dragons to the extreme.
Let us assume as a simplifying assumption that in the general world population, each of the above conditions has a 50% probability, or 0.5. You'd agree with me that this is merely a simplifying condition as not half of all men smoke, and certainly less than 50% of the men in the world have at least a first degree, not 50% of all the men on earth are wealthy, and so on and so forth. Also, as a specific case, it is highly unrealistic that half the men in the world are between 0 and 5 years older than my friend. Thus, this simplifying assumption serves as a maximum, upper bound of how many men worldwide are likely to fulfil her conditions.
Let us also further assume that the dream man, the inamorato, the ideal man is willing to marry her with a 50% probability and that he is neither gay, nor bisexual, nor a celibate priest, nor married already, nor someone who does not want to marry. Two more conditions (he "wants her", and he is "eligible"), each with a 0.5 chance as per my earlier assumption.
OK, since these conditions must hold simultaneously, this means that the probability of finding this dream man (upper bound) is: 0.5 to the power of 21, which works out to be 0.000000476. The world population is currently about 6.6 billion, and let's just assume that half of them are men - so that makes 3.3 billion men (but bear in mind that some of them are still children and some of them are geriatrics). This makes her scope 1573 possible men! If the probability drops to 0.4 for each condition, her scope drops to 14 men. If it drops to 0.3 for each condition, there are 0 men. I really don't fancy her chances.
However, Cowen does suggest another method, called the Honey Trap method. Aha, this one seems more promising. The method goes something like this: attract as many men as possible and interview, review and select those that seem nice, fit your qualities, etc, etc. The problem with the Fighting Dragons method is that if the conditions are too stringent, it puts off possible eligible knights who conclude that it is too difficult to rescue the damsel; they'd rather go for the Honey Trap and take their chances against other guys instead. Maybe my friend should try that.
Interesting material. Anyways, finally - I've got it off my chest.
PS If you're interested in dating my friend, do be sure that you fulfil all her criteria and that you are either in palliative care, medicine or some nursing research field. And she is one rough, tough cookie!
Anything that interests me!